While China is attempting to achieve “most favored nation” status with the US, it has refused Washington’s pressure to improve its human rights record, saying that China and the US have different social systems and ideologies and that they should not interfere in each other’s internal affairs. China stresses “two systems for two different countries and peaceful coexistence.”
If former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) had been more broad-minded and farsighted by emphasizing the differences between Taiwan and China and respecting the actual situation, then the ideal of “two systems for two different countries” would have resulted in peaceful relations between Taiwan and China while the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power.
The dispute over Taiwan stems from China being unable to accept the differences in political, social and ideological systems between Taiwan and China and the tyrannical way in which Beijing wants to make Taiwan part of China. In Chinese, “one” (yi, 一) and “difference” (yi, 異) share the same pronunciation, but have different tones. This slight difference in tone is an unlimited source of trouble.
Unless China faces facts and gives up its insistence on things being “one” and instead accepts “difference,” Taiwan will have no choice but to go off in search of the common strategic interests it shares with other counties around the world. This is the only way Taiwan can resist China’s insistence on things being “one” to uphold the “differences” that actually exist.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has proposed the idea of “seeking harmony, but reserving the right to disagree” and “seeking agreement in a spirit of conciliation.” This takes things out of the framework fixed on “one” and highlights the differences in the values, system and identity between Taiwan and China in order to make the search for “peaceful and stable relations” a common interest and responsibility shared by Taiwan and China. This is something the vast majority of Taiwanese can agree is the lowest common denominator of “two systems for two different countries and peaceful coexistence.”
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) reaction to Tsai’s proposal highlights the similarities between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These two evil twins are in bed together, both clinging to the shaky so-called “1992 consensus” in an attempt to turn Taiwan into a part of China. The way this supposedly makes Taiwan a part of China’s internal affairs has been the subject of strong protest and debate.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has even gone as far as pulling out Taiwan’s garbage Constitution to put pressure on Tsai. That Constitution is a strong symbol of how the KMT raped the people of Taiwan. That Constitution, which splits “China” into two areas, was drawn up by the KMT long before Taiwan’s democratization and is out of touch with the current situation.
While the DPP government was unable to overhaul the Constitution or formulate a new one, their insistence on upholding the “differences” that exist between Taiwan and China and the concepts of independence and autonomy were well respected by the international community.
However, the way the Ma government follows China’s idea of the “one China” principle allows members of the international community to say that the People’s Republic of China is the only side they will deal with.
A constitution is a fundamental piece of legislation that represents the will of a people while also regulating governmental organization and the rights and interests of a population. The “constitution” that Ma supposedly obeys is one that is based on contradictions and distortions and will lead to the end of Taiwan.
James Wang is a commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS